what does the surge matter if Iraqi's can't get their political house in order?

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I know there's been some revisionist history, but the original intent of the surge was to buy some peace time to allow the Iraqi government to get their house in order.

despite what general patreaus seems to be saying, that appears to be totally not happening. so, in the end, what is the point of the surge and continued American involvement if the Iraqis are so completely incapable of getting their shit together? should we just carve up the nation and call it a day?

the latest breakdown:

Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing

BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 ? A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq?s rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed. The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government here.

Senior Iraqi negotiators met in Baghdad on Wednesday in an attempt to salvage the original compromise, two participants said. But the meeting came against the backdrop of a public series of increasingly strident disagreements over the draft law that had broken out in recent days between Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, and officials of the provincial government in the Kurdish north, where some of the nation?s largest fields are located.

Mr. Shahristani, a senior member of the Arab Shiite coalition that controls the federal government, negotiated the compromise with leaders of the Kurdish and Arab Sunni parties. But since then, the Kurds have pressed forward with a regional version of the law that Mr. Shahristani says is illegal. Many of the Sunnis who supported the original deal have also pulled out in recent months.

The oil law ? which would govern how oil fields are developed and managed ? is one of several benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressing the Iraqis to meet as a sign that they are making headway toward creating an effective government.

Again and again in the past year, agreement on the law has been fleetingly close before political and sectarian disagreements have arisen to stall the deal.

One of the participants in Wednesday?s meeting, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, who has worked for much of the past year to push for the original compromise, said some progress had been made at the meeting, but that he could not guarantee success.

?This has been like a roller coaster,? said Mr. Salih, who is Kurdish. ?There were occasions where we seemed to be there, where we seemed to have closure, only to fail at that.?

?Given the seriousness of the issue, I don?t want to create false expectations, but I can say there is serious effort to bring this to closure,? he said.

The legislation has already been presented to the Iraqi Parliament, which has been unable to take virtually any action on it for months. Contributing to the dispute is the decision by the Kurds to begin signing contracts with international oil companies before the federal law is passed. The most recent instance, announced last week on a Kurdish government Web site, was an oil exploration contract with the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas.

The Sunni Arabs who removed their support for the deal did so, in part, because of a contract the Kurdish government signed earlier with a company based in the United Arab Emirates, Dana Gas, to develop gas reserves.

The Kurds say their regional law is consistent with the Iraqi Constitution, which grants substantial powers to the provinces to govern their own affairs. But Mr. Shahristani believes that a sort of Kurdish declaration of independence can be read into the move. ?This to us indicates very serious lack of cooperation that makes many people wonder if they are really going to be working within the framework of the federal law,? Mr. Shahristani said in a recent interview, before the Hunt deal was announced.

Kurdish officials dispute that contention, saying that they are doing their best to work within the Constitution while waiting for the Iraqi Parliament, which always seems to move at a glacial pace, to consider the legislation.

?We reject what some parties say ? that it is a step towards separation ? because we have drafted the Kurdistan oil law depending on Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which says oil and natural resources are properties of Iraqi people,? said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government. ?Both Iraqi and Kurdish oil laws depend on that article,? Mr. Abdullah said.

The other crucial players are the Sunnis and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Some members of one of the main Sunni parties, Tawafiq, which insists on federal control of contracts and exclusive state ownership of the fields, bolted when it became convinced that the Kurds had no intention of following those guidelines.

But the prime minister?s office believes there is a simpler reason the Sunnis abandoned or at least held off on the deal: signing it would have given Mr. Maliki a political success that they did not want him to have. ?I think there is a political reason behind that delay in order not to see the Iraqi government achieve the real agreement,? said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Mr. Maliki. Mr. Rikabi was at Wednesday?s meeting.

Ali Baban, who as a senior member of Tawafiq negotiated the compromise, said that allegation was untrue. ?I have a good relationship? with Mr. Maliki, he said. ?This is an issue of Iraqi unity. This could cause a split in this country.?

Mr. Maliki has suggested returning to the original language agreed to in February and trying once again to push the law through Parliament. Mr. Salih says there is basic agreement on returning to that language, but conceded that Sunni participants in Wednesday?s meeting might insist on a deal that includes changes to the Iraqi Constitution to safeguard their interests in the distribution of revenues. A law on how the revenue should be shared is being developed as a critical companion piece of legislation to the draft law.

The central element of the compromise was agreed to in February after months of difficult negotiations among Iraq?s political groups.

The main parties in those negotiations were Iraqi Kurds, who were eager to sign contracts with international oil companies to develop their northern fields; Arab Shiites, whose population is concentrated around the country?s southern fields; and Arab Sunnis, with fewer oil resources where they predominate.

Those facts meant that the compromise law had to satisfy both the Sunni insistence that the central government maintain strong control over the fields as well as the push by the Kurds and Shiites to give provincial governments substantial authority to write contracts and carry out their own development plans.

Somehow negotiators managed to strike that balance, but soon after, the agreement began to crumble. Many of the negotiations centered on a federal committee that would be set up to review the contracts signed with oil companies to carry out the development and exploitation of the fields. The Kurds objected to any requirement that the committee would have to approve contracts. So in a nuanced bit of language, the negotiators gave the committee the power only to reject contracts that did not meet precisely specified criteria.

But problems immediately cropped up after the cabinet approved the draft law and, in what seemed to be a perfunctory step, it went to a council that was supposed to hone the language to be sure it complied with Iraqi legal conventions.

When the draft emerged from that council, the members of some parties, particularly the Kurdish ones, thought that the careful balance struck in the draft had been upset, and they accused Mr. Shahristani of meddling. Then the law languished in Parliament and, said Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, the Kurds decided to send a signal that they would not wait indefinitely and signed the contract with Dana Gas.

?It served as a reminder: ?If you keep stalling, life goes on,? ? said Mr. Zebari, who is Kurdish.

On Monday the Kurdistan Regional Government, or K.R.G., issued another rejoinder to the oil minister?s views that the Kurds? moves were illegal. ?His views are irrelevant to what the K.R.G. is doing legally and constitutionally in Kurdistan,? the regional government said.

Mr. Shahristani was apparently traveling and did not respond to e-mail messages sent Wednesday. But Saleem Abdullah al-Juburi, a Tawafiq member who participated in Wednesday?s meeting, gave his own assessment of the Kurdish agreements with Hunt and Dana Gas. ?The contracts are not legal,? he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...dleeast/13baghdad.html
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
you will carve it up even if a super majority of Iraqis don't want it? Sure political groups would love that - it means they can spend money however they see fit and enrich themselves...but the split of Iraq is something that the majority of Iraqis don't want.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,089
12
76
fobot.com
I think they need to consider breaking it up into 3 sections, I know that is considered a "bad plan", but it might be the only short term way to stabilize the area. I guess that'll piss off Turkey? if they make Kurdistan a country?
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
FoBoT

the three part idea's not a solution that ANYONE in Iraq wants (except the Kurds). It would leave every major city in Iraq at the mercy of the Kurds. Not exactly the people that the Arabs want in-charge of the oilfields, thus the money and POWER.

Payback would be a Bitch for sure. The Arabs would pay dearly... and slowly.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its another case where human greed rules the day. Normally such divisions would cause any country to collapse but the artificial presence of the US keeps such stupidity afloat and defacto prevents the Iraqi people from having a sense of national identity.

I have long posted that Iraq has gone from dictatorship to a local system of feudalism, there is a pretense of having central government, and the very people who benefit from what Iraq has become are present in the Iraq central government in large enough numbers to torpedo any programs that will in any way threaten the local fiefdoms they have set up.

Although any precise estimate of numbers would be futile, what we basically have is that the very corrupt 1.5% of the Iraqi population that benefit sets the segregate by sect agenda for the 98.5% of the Iraqi people that are uninvolved. And while the US government with a top down strategy tries to interact with the corrupt 1.5% they totally fail to deal with the Iraqi people while the corrupt 1.5% with a bottom up strategy totally sets the local conditions under which the Iraqi people must try to survive under.

Those are simply the conditions and realities our occupation set up, bump and grind over time, and you pretty well have a perfect description of what Iraq is today and why no progress will be made without totally changing strategy so the US can get to the same bottom up strategy.

Such is my ignored opinion but the present fair haired boy is Petraeus. And as you can see Petraeus promises the same six months down the road progress that all his predecessors have dating back to the days of Vietnam.

But it seems to me the first step in solving Iraq is to confront what Iraq has really become and in the process lose the phony rhetoric. If we can't be honest to ourselves, we are doomed. Step two is to change the conditions motivating the corrupt 1.5% because we can't come up with 500,000 troops needed to directly break the insurgencies or try a bottom up with the Iraqi people.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I agree... any progress made militarily will be null and void if their government never steps up to the plate.

This is common knowledge.

Security has always been a prerequisite, and I believe we're approaching a time when the security situation may be sufficient to allow for significant political progress.

I know I know... being an optimist isn't popular. But that's what I am, so deal with it...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I agree... any progress made militarily will be null and void if their government never steps up to the plate.

This is common knowledge.

Security has always been a prerequisite, and I believe we're approaching a time when the security situation may be sufficient to allow for significant political progress.

I know I know... being an optimist isn't popular. But that's what I am, so deal with it...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gotta love your last line of being an optimist, it may be the story of our Iraqi war failure in a nutshell. Far too much optimism and not a bit of pragmatism.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,284
6,026
126
It would have been better, in my opinion, if we had simply taken over the country and declared it the 51st state, instituted the US and California Constitutions and told them to expect to become the Silicon Valley of the ME. Then, instead of blowing our wealth out of the ends of our guns, we could have handed it our as loans to Iraqis who wanted to own companies that would work to rebuild. Finally we could have promised elections when employment reached 90%.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Well it matters a lot. It is a lot easier to make political gains if you can establish a little peace in your country.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Well it matters a lot. It is a lot easier to make political gains if you can establish a little peace in your country.

Somehow there is a giant fallacy in expecting a group of people whose area of expertise
is blowing big thing into littler pieces to somehow create peace.

Especially since the groups that create anarchy try not to do it when the military is watching.
And there are too many times of the cat being away, to prevent the mice from being able to play.

Which piasabird, may explain why we are making no political gains.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well, it seems to me that there is a bit of revisionist hostory taking place. Earlier it was the "Petraeus Report" that was so important for the Dems in Congress. Now that it seems posisitive, everybody is screaming about a positive "Crocker Report". Crocker's is the one who reports on political progress in Iraq, but until now nobody seemed much interested in his report.

Seems to me that in many ways we're the one's building Iraq's government. So, any respite from violence the surge provides might really be more useful to us. Clearly, we're not very good at biulding govs elsewhere. Maybe we're starting to figure out how to actually do it?

Instead of the *top down* governement, maybe we should be doing a *bottom up* government. IMO, the sucess in Anbar etc is the result of the latter, and given Iraq's tribal nature a bottom up government may be far more natural and successful in Iraq.

I doubt our State Dept likes the *bottom up* method. Seems to me they can't play that game (not enough State Dept people to deploy at every neighborhood etc), Plus I feel the State Dept by it's very nature is a *top down* kind of agency.

The military, OTOH, seems perfectly suited for it. In effect, they would have to displace the State Dept, and I doubt the State Dept would like that. But that's just what may happening in effect, and in a rather unnoticed and quiet way.

Fern
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
The problem with Iraq is they consider their religion to be more important then their goverment. When they put religion first your going to have a very, very hard time getting any kind of a political compromise.

We need to set a date to start a withdrawl and if they don't have their political compromises made then let the cards fall where they may.


Dodd: ?There is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq?you said that yourself General Petraeus?

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4038

?In the eight months since President Bush?s announced the surge, we have spent tens of billions of dollars, over 700 American service men and women have sacrificed their lives, and nearly 4,400 have been wounded?all to provide breathing space for the Iraqi Government to engage in political reconciliation. And what has the Iraqi Government done with this breathing space??

?That is why I will not support any additional assistance for our military involvement in Iraq that does not include a clear enforcement date for beginning and completing the deployment of US combat forces from Iraq,? said Dodd.



 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

The problem with Iraq is they consider their religion to be more important then their goverment.

Umm... I think everyone in the world feels that way too. Even atheists, would they start worshipping a god if their gov told them to? I don't think so. My family is more important to me than the gov too.

I think the problem has more to do with money & power, and how to split it up.

There's an old saying, "*no* deal is better than a *bad* deal". And the structure the US is applying to Iraqi politics at this time merely encourages hold outs. The exact thing we're trying to eliminate.

The weaker party in the negotiations over money & power is now effectively empowered by the US stance of "get an agreement or we leave". The lone weak party can hold out hoping to get a disproportionatly better deal at risk of an American pullout.

Coersion is rarely a good thing in hamering out deals, in fact, it's illegal here. Such deals usually become undone at a later date anyway.

Fern
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

The problem with Iraq is they consider their religion to be more important then their goverment.

Umm... I think everyone in the world feels that way too. Even atheists, would they start worshipping a god if their gov told them to? I don't think so. My family is more important to me than the gov too.

I think the problem has more to do with money & power, and how to split it up.

There's an old saying, "*no* deal is better than a *bad* deal". And the structure the US is applying to Iraqi politics at this time merely encourages hold outs. The exact thing we're trying to eliminate.

The weaker party in the negotiations over money & power is now effectively empowered by the US stance of "get an agreement or we leave". The lone weak party can hold out hoping to get a disproportionatly better deal at risk of an American pullout.

Coersion is rarely a good thing in hamering out deals, in fact, it's illegal here. Such deals usually become undone at a later date anyway.

Fern

From I've been able to glean the Muslim goverments are secondary to the religion and that is why they have so much secretarian violence.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
From I've been able to glean the Muslim goverments are secondary to the religion and that is why they have so much secretarian violence.

In Islam, everything is secondary to religion. It's their entire way of life.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
The "sects" in Iraq aren't fighting over religion in terms of which version is better. The sects merely represent a convenient grouping of people, each whom are vying for a dominant political stance in the country. Other than in regards to the Al Qaeda nuts, this has surprisingly little to do with Islam.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: yllus
The "sects" in Iraq aren't fighting over religion in terms of which version is better. The sects merely represent a convenient grouping of people, each whom are vying for a dominant political stance in the country. Other than in regards to the Al Qaeda nuts, this has surprisingly little to do with Islam.

So if the Presbyterians in this country were in power they would give the Methodists all the crappy jobs? How is that NOT a religious conflict when it is the little differences between the religion beliefs that is causing the turmoil.... and this in a country where religion comes before everything else?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Muslim religion is as much muslim culture as muslim religion. In their country we are the Infedels.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I think entirely too much of this is being attributed to religion and not enough to human nature. In any society when economic opportunity was divided by any secondary characteristic be it religion, skin color, or whatever, then you always have a recipe for a powder keg.

Before the US reshuffled the deck in Iraq the Sunnis with a firth of the Iraqi population ruled the roost and the Kurds and Shia grew to hate them because the Sunni EARNED IT. And now the Sunnis are screwed any way they go which is a good part of why they are willing to work with the USA in places like Anbar. As for the Shia and the Kurds, they have already rolled it all up in their areas and never had it so good. The second the US says now share with the Sunnis
and unroll what you bankrolled up, they are going to resist tooth and nail.

As far as I am concerned its the same human nature story of greed, opportunity, and revenge. And if you can't diagnose the disease, you can't even start on a cure.

Maybe some homegrown Iraqi Gandhi or Mendella will arise, but those are very rare. But GWB&co. won't even make up an inferior counterfeit.